HM Treasury

Statutory Report on the UK bilateral loan to Ireland

Lord O'Neill of Gatley: My honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (David Gauke) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.HM Treasury has today provided a further report to Parliament in relation to the bilateral loan to Ireland as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010. The report relates to the period from 1 October 2015 to 31 March 2016.A written ministerial statement on the previous statutory report regarding the loan to Ireland was issued to Parliament on 15 October 2015, Official Report, column 22WS.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS704

UK Guarantee for Countesswells Development Limited

Lord O'Neill of Gatley: My right honourable friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement. The UK Guarantees scheme was announced in July 2012 with spending cover provided through the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012, receiving Royal Assent on 31 October 2012. The scheme provides a sovereign-backed guarantee to help infrastructure projects raise debt finance. Guarantees for up to £40 billion in aggregate can be offered under the initiative. The government is confirming that it has approved the provision of a guarantee for up to £86 million to the Countesswells project for the construction of over 3,000 homes on the Countesswells site in Aberdeen. The government will report to Parliament on the financial assistance given in line with the requirements set out in the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS703

Home Office

Hillsborough

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My rt hon Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Theresa May) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement:The determinations and findings of the fresh Hillsborough inquests are being announced today. The jury are responding to 14 questions as part of a general questionnaire and responding to two questions in an individual questionnaire related to each of the 96 people who lost their lives in the tragedy. The questions in the general questionnaire and the individual questionnaire are listed below. It is my intention to make a full statement to Parliament tomorrow. Question 1: Do you agree with the following statement which is intended to summarise the basic facts of the disaster. “Ninety-six people died as a result of the Disaster at Hillsborough Stadium on 15 April 1989 due to crushing in the central pens of the Leppings Lane Terrace, following the admission of a large number of supporters to the Stadium through exit gates.” Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 2: Was there any error or omission in police planning and preparation for the semi-final match on 15 April 1989 which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to the question above is “no”, please answer the following question. Was there any error or omission in police planning and preparation for the semi-final match on 15 April 1989 which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match? Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 3: Was there any error or omission in policing on the day of the match which caused or contributed to a dangerous situation developing at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to the question above is “no”, please answer the following question. Was there any error or omission in policing on the day of the match which may have caused or contributed to a dangerous situation developing at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 4: Was there any error or omission by commanding officers which caused or contributed to the crush on the terrace? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to the question above is “no”, please answer the following question. Was there any error or omission by commanding officers which may have caused or contributed to the crush on the terrace? Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 5: When the order was given to open the exit gates at the Leppings lane end of the Stadium, was there any error or omission by the commanding officers in the control box which caused or contributed to the crush on the terrace? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to the question above is “no”, please answer the following question. When the order was given to open the exit gates at the Leppings Lane end of the Stadium, was there any error or omission by the commanding officers in the control box which may have caused or contributed to the crush on the terrace? Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 6: Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the Disaster were unlawfully killed? Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 7: Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to the question above is “no”, please answer the following question. Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to either of the questions above is “yes”, please answer the following question. Was that behaviour unusual or unforeseeable? Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 8: Were there any features of the design, construction and layout of the Stadium which you consider were dangerous or defective and which caused or contributed to the Disaster? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to the question above is “no”, please answer the following question. Were there any features of the design, construction and layout of the Stadium which you consider were dangerous or defective and which may have caused or contributed to the Disaster? Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 9: Was there any error or omission in the safety certification and oversight of Hillsborough Stadium that caused or contributed to the Disaster? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to the question is “no”, please answer the following question. Was there any error or omission in the safety certification and oversight of Hillsborough Stadium that may have caused or contributed to the Disaster? Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 10: Was there any error or omission by Sheffield Wednesday FC (and its staff) in the management of the Stadium and/or preparation for the semi-final match on 15 April 1989 which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to the question above is “no”, please answer the following question. Was there any error or omission by Sheffield Wednesday FC (and its staff) in the management of the Stadium and/or preparation for the semi-final match on 15 April 1989 which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match? Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 11: Was there any error or omission by Sheffield Wednesday FC (and its staff) on 15 April 1989 which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed at the Leppings Lane turnstiles and in the west terrace? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to the question above is “no”, please answer the following question. Was there any error or omission by Sheffield Wednesday FC (and its staff) on 15 April 1989 which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed at the Leppings Lane turnstiles and in the west terrace? Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 12: Should Eastwood & Partners have done more to detect and advise on any unsafe or unsatisfactory features of Hillsborough Stadium which caused or contributed to the Disaster? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to the question is “no”, please answer the following question. Should Eastwood & Partners have done more to detect and advise on any unsafe or unsatisfactory features of Hillsborough stadium which may have caused or contributed to the Disaster? Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 13: After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the police which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the Disaster? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to the question above is “no”, please answer the following question. After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the police which may have caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the Disaster? Answer “yes” or “no”. Question 14: After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the ambulance service (SYMAS) which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the Disaster? Answer “yes” or “no”. If your answer to the question above is “no”, please answer the following question. After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the ambulance service (SYMAS) which may have caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the Disaster? Answer “yes” or “no”. The questions in individual questionnaire are: Question1: What was the medical cause of the person’s death? Question 2: Please state the time of death for the person. This should be stated as a bracket between (i) the last point in time when it can be established that the person was probably alive and (ii) the point in time by which it can be established that the person had probably died.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS702

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Higher Education Student Support in England

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Today I am announcing that the Government will extend student support in England to an additional group of students.This decision follows a ruling of the Supreme Court on 29 July 2015 that it was unlawful to refuse an individual student, Ms Beaurish Tigere, a loan solely on the basis that she was not settled in the UK. Most students secure support by virtue of their having such status. Ms Tigere did not, but had as a matter of fact been resident in the UK from an early age and had completed her primary and secondary education here.The Government has consulted on the creation of a new category of eligibility for student support based on long residence in the UK to implement the Supreme Court’s judgement in respect of students in a materially identical position to Ms Tigere. I am grateful to those who responded to the consultation which closed in January 2016. The comments we received were taken fully into account, and helped us to refine the initial proposals.Settled status will remain the most common route for students to become eligible for student support, but those with a period of long residency in the UK will now also become eligible. Student support will now be available for those persons who are:under 18 years of age and who have lived in the UK for at least 7 years prior to the first day of the first academic year of their course; or are Aged 18 years and above who have either spent at least half their life in the UK or at least 20 years in the UK prior to the first day of the first academic year of their course.In all cases, the students would also need to demonstrate three years’ ordinary lawful residence in the United Kingdom immediately preceding the start of their course, and meet other relevant eligibility criteria, to be able to access student support.We are planning to lay amending Regulations shortly so that this change can take effect for the 2016/17 academic year.We also plan to make identical changes to the regulations setting out the residency rules for Advanced Learner Loans and the Postgraduate Master’s Loan for the academic year 2016/17.These changes will enable students who have lived in the UK for a long period of time to continue their studies.Higher education is a devolved matter and therefore the Devolved Administrations will need to consider how the Supreme Court’s ruling affects their funding systems.


This statement has also been made in the House of Commons: 
HCWS701